A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

[anotherneil]

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to each island.

The idea is to get an equal number of volunteers (they would all receive compensation for participating in this experiment) who subscribe to the political ideology assigned to each island onto each island; the anarchism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to anarchism, the socialism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to socialism, and the libertarian island would only have volunteers who subscribe to libertarianism.

By subscribe, I mean that they both advocate for and wish to practices their respective ideologies.

By anarchism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the individual gets priority over the collective.
By socialism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
By libertarianism, I'm referring to the philosophy that neither the collective nor the individual gets priority over the other (i.e., there has to be equilibrium between the two).

The experiment I would like to do is for much greater than Dunbar's number (which is around 150) of people on each island, so let's say 1,000 people per island. Let's also make this a 5-year experiment.

After 5 years, which one in your opinion would be in the best shape overall, and which one in your opinion would be in the worst shape overall?

Not only would there have to be an equal number of individuals on each island (1,000 per island), but they would also have to be equal in collective background, experience, profession, intelligence.

For example, if there's a cardiologist with 25 years of experience for one island, there have to be cardiologists with 25 years of experience on the other 2 islands; if there's a 30-year old math wiz on one island, then there have to be 30-year old math wizzes on the other 2 island; if there are 50 experienced carpenters on one island, there have to be 50 experienced carpenters on the other 2 islands; if there are no retired commercial airline pilots on one island, then there cannot be any retired commercial airline pilots on the other islands; if 10 individuals are 6'5" tall on one island, there have to be 10 individuals who are 6'5" on the other 2 islands.

The point is that the experiments have to be identical in population content; if this experiment were to actually be conducted, then some slack and tolerance for slight variations would have to be allowed, such as substitution with a retired pleasure cruise captains in lieu of a lack of availability of retired commercial airline pilots, etc.

For practical reasons, initial supplies of certain kinds of basic materials, such as concrete, bricks, nails, wiring, electric motors, batteries, windmills, solar panels, pots, pans, light bulbs, hammers, saws, tape measures, wire cutters, wire strippers, pens/pencils, paper, etc. that would be suitable for eliminating the need to have to develop technology from scratch in order to catch up to where we're at within a century, would be provided to each island in equal portions.

Same with food and drinks; an initial supply of food and drinks (water, juice, milk, etc.) would have to be provided in equal portions to each island. An equal amount of cattle and seeds could also be provided to each island.

I think, for the sake of having reliable results, availability of news and means of communication with the outside world would not be permitted, but within each island, they may have communication systems that work only within the islands. The reason for not allowing communication or information from the outside world would be to prevent skewing of the progress of each island, resulting in it being a closed-loop feedback system competition against each other (meaning how hard they work won't increase or decrease based on how they compare to the other 2 respective islands, or get incentivized or demoralized by false progress reports, etc.).

The criteria for being best or worst would be determined based on the overall quality of life, standard of living, comfort, health, happiness, how well volunteers got along, and how economically efficient each island is at the end of the experiment.

 

[PureX]

By anarchism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the individual gets priority over the collective.
By socialism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
By libertarianism, I'm referring to the philosophy that neither the collective nor the individual gets priority over the other (i.e., there has to be equilibrium between the two).

The experiment I would like to do is for much greater than Dunbar's number (which is around 150) of people on each island, so let's say 1,000 people per island. Let's also make this a 5-year experiment.

After 5 years, which one in your opinion would be in the best shape overall, and which one in your opinion would be in the worst shape overall?

Once we recognize that the well being of the collective and the well being of the individuals within the collective are the same well being, all this contention vanishes. So it's basically the premise, here, that is flawed. That premise being that the well being of the individual and the well being of the collective are divergent, and in antipathy with each other. When they are not. So the solution is for the people living on all three islands to raise their awareness to a level that enables them to recognize and respect their own collective reality.

The solution to the question is "none of the above". None of these political ideations will be successful because none of them are based on recognizing and acting on the simple fact that the well being of our collective and our own well being are one and the same. That we are not actually in contention with each other, in life, as our dumb animal natures and the poison of capitalism run amok have so thoroughly convinced us all that we are.

 

[Augustus]

Not only would there have to be an equal number of individuals on each island (1,000 per island), but they would also have to be equal in collective background, experience, profession, intelligence.

For 1000 people I’d guess socialism would do best (on average), but unless we are running the experiment many times a lot would depend on randomness for small populations and short time periods.

I’m not sure any of these philosophies scale particularly well into the tens of millions in most modern nations though or that such a thought experiment tells us much about the real world.

 

[Koldo]

By subscribe, I mean that they both advocate for and wish to practices their respective ideologies.

By anarchism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the individual gets priority over the collective.
By socialism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
By libertarianism, I'm referring to the philosophy that neither the collective nor the individual gets priority over the other (i.e., there has to be equilibrium between the two).

I legit wonder where you got those definitions from because they are messed up.

Both anarcho-capitalists and communists are anarchists, but by your definition communists are not. Curiously, a philosophy where the individual gets the priority would include libertarianism, but you have created another category for this one and provided another messed up definition.

What you are calling socialism is properly called collectivism. Would both fascists and communists be in the same island then? Socialism is supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism. If you are starting an island from stratch, you wouldn't have socialism.

The middle ground between the individual and the collective would be found in a constitutional republic with some form of welfare state. Definitely nothing to do with libertarianism.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to each island.

I don't think this can work (as a thought experiment or in reality) with singular labels. As other replies have pointed out (or demonstrated), the definitions and interpretations of those terms can vary massively. I'd argue the most fantastical element of the thought experiment you propose is having a thousand people with the same ideology.

For a viable thought experiment, I think you'd need to define the different socio-political principles and structures in much more detail. There are all sorts of vastly different social structures that could work if they were perfectly applied as designed. The fundamental problem will always be the same one though; people. Even those who share the same ideas and principles aren't necessarily going to follow them in the same way, especially in difficult times. To a great extent, the nature of the system is only as important as how that system is implemented and managed in practice.

A benevolent dictator is likely to be better than a corrupt elected government, but that doesn't mean dictatorship is better than democracy.

 

[Heyo]

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to each island.

The idea is to get an equal number of volunteers (they would all receive compensation for participating in this experiment) who subscribe to the political ideology assigned to each island onto each island; the anarchism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to anarchism, the socialism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to socialism, and the libertarian island would only have volunteers who subscribe to libertarianism.

By subscribe, I mean that they both advocate for and wish to practices their respective ideologies.

By anarchism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the individual gets priority over the collective.
By socialism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
By libertarianism, I'm referring to the philosophy that neither the collective nor the individual gets priority over the other (i.e., there has to be equilibrium between the two).

The experiment I would like to do is for much greater than Dunbar's number (which is around 150) of people on each island, so let's say 1,000 people per island. Let's also make this a 5-year experiment.

After 5 years, which one in your opinion would be in the best shape overall, and which one in your opinion would be in the worst shape overall?

Not only would there have to be an equal number of individuals on each island (1,000 per island), but they would also have to be equal in collective background, experience, profession, intelligence.

For example, if there's a cardiologist with 25 years of experience for one island, there have to be cardiologists with 25 years of experience on the other 2 islands; if there's a 30-year old math wiz on one island, then there have to be 30-year old math wizzes on the other 2 island; if there are 50 experienced carpenters on one island, there have to be 50 experienced carpenters on the other 2 islands; if there are no retired commercial airline pilots on one island, then there cannot be any retired commercial airline pilots on the other islands; if 10 individuals are 6'5" tall on one island, there have to be 10 individuals who are 6'5" on the other 2 islands.

The point is that the experiments have to be identical in population content; if this experiment were to actually be conducted, then some slack and tolerance for slight variations would have to be allowed, such as substitution with a retired pleasure cruise captains in lieu of a lack of availability of retired commercial airline pilots, etc.

For practical reasons, initial supplies of certain kinds of basic materials, such as concrete, bricks, nails, wiring, electric motors, batteries, windmills, solar panels, pots, pans, light bulbs, hammers, saws, tape measures, wire cutters, wire strippers, pens/pencils, paper, etc. that would be suitable for eliminating the need to have to develop technology from scratch in order to catch up to where we're at within a century, would be provided to each island in equal portions.

Same with food and drinks; an initial supply of food and drinks (water, juice, milk, etc.) would have to be provided in equal portions to each island. An equal amount of cattle and seeds could also be provided to each island.

I think, for the sake of having reliable results, availability of news and means of communication with the outside world would not be permitted, but within each island, they may have communication systems that work only within the islands. The reason for not allowing communication or information from the outside world would be to prevent skewing of the progress of each island, resulting in it being a closed-loop feedback system competition against each other (meaning how hard they work won't increase or decrease based on how they compare to the other 2 respective islands, or get incentivized or demoralized by false progress reports, etc.).

The criteria for being best or worst would be determined based on the overall quality of life, standard of living, comfort, health, happiness, how well volunteers got along, and how economically efficient each island is at the end of the experiment.

I don't think there would be much difference. The one thing that is not compatible with reality, is that people agree about which system would be best. That never happens in the real world. IRL you have friction losses because of disagreement, in your experiment there would be no such thing. And not only do the people agree about the system, but also on the goal. I.e. what you call "anarchists" would easily work together towards the common goal, making them not that different from those you call "socialists".

 

[Stevicus]

I think, for the sake of having reliable results, availability of news and means of communication with the outside world would not be permitted, but within each island, they may have communication systems that work only within the islands. The reason for not allowing communication or information from the outside world would be to prevent skewing of the progress of each island, resulting in it being a closed-loop feedback system competition against each other (meaning how hard they work won't increase or decrease based on how they compare to the other 2 respective islands, or get incentivized or demoralized by false progress reports, etc.).

The criteria for being best or worst would be determined based on the overall quality of life, standard of living, comfort, health, happiness, how well volunteers got along, and how economically efficient each island is at the end of the experiment.

Would there be communication between the islands? Would they have trade or diplomatic relations with each other? Is there a possibility they could fight or go to war with each other?

 

[McBell]

I did a copy/paste of the OP in Gemini and then spoilered the results below

Spoiler: Gemini thoughts on the OP

​

Disclaimer: While this is an intriguing thought experiment, it's important to note that real-world implementation would face numerous challenges, including ethical considerations, logistical complexities, and the unpredictability of human behavior.​

Hypothetical Outcomes​

Given the controlled conditions and equal initial resources, the hypothetical outcomes of this experiment could be influenced significantly by the inherent characteristics of each political ideology:​

1. Anarchism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without any form of governance, coordination and cooperation could be difficult to achieve. This could lead to conflicts, resource depletion, and a lack of infrastructure development.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms would be maximized, potentially leading to innovation and creativity. However, without a system to protect individual rights, there could be a risk of exploitation and oppression.

2. Socialism:​

• Potential Challenges: Centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, leading to resource misallocation and a lack of responsiveness to local needs. There's also a risk of stifling individual initiative and creativity.
• Potential Benefits: A focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a more equitable distribution of resources and a strong social safety net.

3. Libertarianism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without a strong government, there could be challenges in providing essential public goods like infrastructure, defense, and law enforcement. This could lead to instability and a lack of social cohesion.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and economic growth. However, without regulations and social safety nets, there could be a risk of inequality and exploitation.

Predicting the Outcomes​

Based on these factors, it's difficult to definitively predict which island would be in the best or worst shape after five years. However, some potential scenarios could play out:​

• Anarchism: While there's potential for innovation, the lack of governance and coordination could lead to significant challenges, potentially resulting in a relatively poor outcome.
• Socialism: The centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, but the focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a reasonably stable and equitable society.
• Libertarianism: The emphasis on individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and growth, but the lack of government intervention could also lead to inequality and instability.

Ultimately, the success or failure of each island would depend on a complex interplay of factors, including:​

• Human Behavior: How well individuals within each ideology cooperate, resolve conflicts, and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Cultural Factors: The cultural norms and values that develop within each community.
• Environmental Factors: The impact of natural disasters or resource scarcity on each island.

It's important to note that this is a highly simplified model, and real-world outcomes would likely be much more nuanced and unpredictable.

 

[bobhikes]

There is no solution, for a time period one or maybe all would succeed but in the end all would fail because humans don't follow ideals for long and change based on slight discomfort or success.

 

[Madsaac]

I think that a communities happiness would often lead to an individuals happiness, so socialist island.

Strong, free and cunning people do not always want what's best for the greater good....hello Donald

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that a communities happiness would often lead to an individuals happiness, so socialist island.

Strong, free and cunning people do not always want what's best for the greater good....hello Donald

Actually socialists will start out in the lead.

I think they will do really exceptionally well that is of course until the funds run out and then they turn parasitically into the very people who had supported them, and then everything bottoms out into chaos and destruction as all the blood is sucked dry until there is nothing left to prey on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I legit wonder where you got those definitions from because they are messed up.

Both anarcho-capitalists and communists are anarchists, but by your definition communists are not. Curiously, a philosophy where the individual gets the priority would include libertarianism, but you have created another category for this one and provided another messed up definition.

What you are calling socialism is properly called collectivism. Would both fascists and communists be in the same island then? Socialism is supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism. If you are starting an island from stratch, you wouldn't have socialism.

I just wanted to add that both socialism and communism can and do exist outside of Marxist frameworks.

 

[Madsaac]

Actually socialists will start out in the lead.

I think they will do really exceptionally well that is of course until the funds run out and then they turn parasitically into the very people who had supported them, and then everything bottoms out into chaos and destruction as all the blood is sucked dry until there is nothing left to prey on.

Democracy wasn’t a choice so out of the three, socialism was the best available.

Anarchy would mean only a handful of people would be getting what’s needed and liberalism is not too much better, just the same but with a little more care and understanding…….in other words, I’ll do what’s good for me and frick everyone else.

 

[an anarchist]

each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to each island

Okay I can’t hold my tongue. Though others have pointed out the problems of definitions…

Good luck trying to get self proclaimed anarchists to agree with each other that the other one is an anarchist. @Heyo and I are both anarchists, but we are not at the same time we have different views on what anarchism is even though we have overlapping thoughts. I would equate libertarianism to anarchism, synonyms if you will. Others would not.

If you want a simple political spectrum that is accurate, I suppose you want the impossible. I personally like to divide people up into 2 categories: 1- Statist 2- Anarchist but there are even problems with this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Okay I can’t hold my tongue. Though others have pointed out the problems of definitions…

Good luck trying to get self proclaimed anarchists to agree with each other that the other one is an anarchist. @Heyo and I are both anarchists, but we are not at the same time we have different views on what anarchism is even though we have overlapping thoughts. I would equate libertarianism to anarchism, synonyms if you will. Others would not.

If you want a simple political spectrum that is accurate, I suppose you want the impossible. I personally like to divide people up into 2 categories: 1- Statist 2- Anarchist but there are even problems with this.

Make no bones about it. @Heyo has been a self declared communist.

 

[an anarchist]

Make no bones about it. @Heyo is a self declared communist.

I think he says he is both? Which befuddles me which is my point.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think he says he is both? Which befuddles me which is my point.

I think everyone, or at least most people have an anarchist edge to them. Even I to a degree support anarchy if for anything else that it retains individualism and the urge to challenge the system from time to time.

 

[an anarchist]

I think everyone, or at least most people have an anarchist edge to them. Even I to a degree support anarchy if for anything else that it retains individualism and the urge to challenge the system from time to time.

We all have -

within us

 

[Stevicus]

Make no bones about it. @Heyo has been a self declared communist.

Walking around barefoot like that? A communist? I thought communists always wore boots.

 

[Heyo]

Make no bones about it. @Heyo has been a self declared communist.

You must misremember that. I have never been a communist, not even a socialist.
My form of atheism is most accurately described as mutualism, which in turn fits the OP's definition of libertarianism best.
The idea is that co-operation is best for the economy, while retaining personal freedom on all other personal matters.